This is a level of manipulation of time (causality) which is completely out of reach of the most powerful computer.
Why exactly ? Computers can also run simulations.
The child not only manipulates time as an abstract concept, but also demonstrates a theory of mind. AFAIK, no simulation has yet achieved a theory of mind.
Traffic on Thanksgiving itself is also light, according to the data.
Another important revelation!
The data apparently hasn't heard of the Jersey Turnpike - probably because of its laser-like focus on cities.
If you think it is unpleasant to have an incompetent boss at work, spare a thought for all the soldiers in WW1 whose bosses thought massive frontal assaults were the way to win.
Just out of curiosity are there any professional programmers out there who don't regularly copy functions from the Internet?
Part of being a contemporary coder is making use of available code. Libraries of functions are "other people's code". Languages are other people's code. Etc. it's all about other people's code.
This defense always comes up when cheating is the issue, and it is always wrong. The purpose of an examination is to determine if an individual understands the subject matter, and no argument how programming is done in practice alters the fact that a cheater has failed to demonstrate that he understands the subject matter (and has, in fact, provided good evidence that he does not.)
Furthermore, one should not be spending the time and money a degree from Duke costs, just to be a cut-and-paste coder - a semester at a community college should be enough, if you can't teach yourself. The purpose of a university education is to develop a thorough understanding of the subject matter in order to become the person who finds solutions to problems, rather than the people who copy them.
Cheating only harms the cheater...
There is one other group harmed, and quite seriously, by widespread cheating: those who have worked hard and honestly for the best diploma they can both achieve and afford, but see it devalued to worthlessness because too many holders of the same diploma are cheaters, and incompetent.
According to Anses, the process of assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image.
Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?
In normal vision, we look at the same place from two slightly different directions. Furthermore, it is well-established that the neural 'wiring' for assimilating these two views into a single stereo image develops during childhood, in response to the stimuli. (I am not so sure about this, but I think this is also true for the wiring that controls the eye muscles and therefore the convergence of vision.) I am not a biologist, but I think there are grounds for concern here.
AmiMoJo makes a valid point (though not the most important one that could be made on the topic): the article's title is click bait.
1) Even assuming you are right, just because it 'only' sucks wouldn't lead me to think this issue can be disregarded. Dealing with credit card fraud while travelling, especially in a foreign country, is not something to shrug off.
2) At least in the UK, credit card companies have used the alleged security of EMV to transfer some of the risk to the cardholder (see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sjm21... )
3) I don't think transferring the cost to the merchant is an acceptable solution. As explained in other posts here, the merchant who accepts the stolen funds is rarely the perpetrator of the fraud.
If that's the only way to use a NFC card safely, then having NFC on a card seems to be a pointless additional security risk.
Water is one of a large class of substances that we would like to find in space for local use, rather than to send back. Any mining materials return operation will want to minimize human presence, but for maintainability that presence cannot be zero. Hence the need for life-maintaining consumables.
I think you have missed the point of my second paragraph, "If you want to justify space exploration on economics, then you must accept that economics will set the schedule." In economic arguments, you cannot simply treat imagined future needs as if they were actual current needs.
A lot of space boosterism displays confusion over the proper use of the present and future tenses.
The folks from Deep Space Industries are hoping to sell their asteroid water for 1/1000th its current value. I question the intelligence of anyone that describes such a dramatic decrease in cost as "pricey".
Good, then the prof. is right - there's no point in the government spending money on developing technology that private enterprise can so easily and profitably create.
Water on Earth is cheap and plentiful
Water in Earth orbit on the other hand is neither.
Water on on earth is needed, and in large quantities. Water in orbit is currently only being used by a few nations' vanity projects.
If you want to justify space exploration on economics, then you must accept that economics will set the schedule.
Thanks for your informative post. In addition, there is an issue that I was unaware of until I read it in the original article here: "...Challenger's external fuel tank disintegrated, throwing the orbiter into the local airflow at forces way above design tolerances. It ripped apart, claiming the lives of seven astronauts."
Implying that even if Challenger could have been separated cleanly and undamaged from the exploding tank, it would not have survived. A stronger, and therefore heavier or smaller orbiter, does not seem to be feasible, given the extent to which the shuttle design was already stretching the envelope.
That's why we are back to capsules, I guess.
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse
